marmer

Hard to imagine something like Rendezvous Houston happening now. This economic downturn seems much worse.

The "small amusement park" was Malibu Grand Prix, which had an asphalt track and very nice mini-F1 cars. You had to have an actual driver's license to drive. Expensive, but lots of fun once in a while. From Wikipedia: "Houston, Texas once had two Malibu Grand Prix locations. The Southwest Freeway location was shuttered in the early 1990's (the original building stood until 2009). This location was the site of the (locally) infamous Malibu Grand Prix murders. The murders were committed on July 1, 1983, during the course of a robbery. Four employees who had just closed up and were in the process of conducting post-closing housekeeping duties were killed. A recently-terminated employee gained entry to the building under the pretext of picking up his last paycheck, and brought two accomplices with him. All were convicted (two received the death penalty, and one was sentenced to life imprisonment).[1] The other location was off the Katy Freeway and the northwest corner of the West Loop 610 at Old Katy Road (the Old Katy location was the remaining Malibu Grand Prix location until it was boarded up in early-2005)." The Old Katy location (I thought it was 290) had a big mini-golf course and arcade in addition to the track.

Isn't it the largest building in the bottom right corner, with the "scalloped" roofline and faux-columns?

Sorry to grave-dig a thread, but it looks like 315 Brown Saddle, the house originally referenced in this thread, is up for sale. Swamplot has pictures! Swamplot

Niiice. Thanks, sev. Wonder if there's any Krakower in that...

I never went there but I'm pretty sure that you are right. Just another fun, freaky thing about those days.

I remember that too, and I thought that was one of the reasons that the Guardian Angels started a chapter in Houston. But my earlier "dangerous" comment wasn't only about gay bashing, although that is part of it. I seem to recall the statistic that Lower Westheimer led the city in armed robberies back then, and that open use of IV drugs was a big problem with those seedy motels and modeling studios. If I'm remembering wrong, no doubt someone will correct me.

IIRC in the 80s it was DANGEROUS after dark down there. My sense is it's better now.

Sev, I came to Houston in 1980; I don't remember Tex-Fried at all. I am almost completely sure that Big Franks was there in the mid to late 80s and maybe early 90s. I ate at the Kirby location a few times; as I recall they made a big deal about using Vienna Beef wieners. They were good but as several others have stated, it's hard to get real excited about going to a restaurant to eat hot dogs.

Pretty sure the little indie hot dog place on Montrose and also at Sunset and Kirby was called "Big Frank's."

As the last sentence of my post made clear, I thought. The "Der Wienerschnitzel" chain is about as German as Taco Bell is Mexican. I was just making the point that the actual dish "Wienerschnitzel" has nothing to do with sausage. They're just making a play on the common usage of "wiener" as a hot dog. This Wikipedia article has a lot of interesting information, not least of which is that "Der Wienerschnitzel" is grammatically incorrect in German and the restaurant chain dropped the "Der" in 1977. Wikipedia article My wife was once very upset to learn that the department store Weiner's (spelled E-I) did not sell hot dogs, nor any kind of food.

Wienerschnitzel, or "schnitzel from Vienna" is an Austrian dish made from flattened, tenderized veal coated in breadcrumbs and fried. It looks like chicken fried steak and is usually served with a lemon slice. It is also sometimes made from pork but in Austria the name is protected by law and can only be used for veal. "Wiener" of course, means "Viennese" in German. It always annoys me that this perfectly elegant European dish has had its name co-opted by a fast-food hot dog place.

It's been that way a long time. I got told I couldn't use a tripod to set up a group picture when we met up with some relatives at the Waterwall back in 1990 or so. Just wanted to do that so I could get in the picture too, with the self timer. The security guard was perfectly obliging and willing to take our picture, so apparently that comes up all the time. Wonder if they screen their security guards for photography skills?

Niche, can you give us any perspective on how it's worked in Galveston? My sense is, and I could be wrong, that it's very restrictive in what you can to to a 100-year-old house. there are still plenty of old houses in bad shape awaiting restoration. People do restore houses in Galveston that would be teardowns elsewhere People almost always build significant additions to the rear of Victorian "townhouses" Property values have gone up significantly in historic districts but are still relatively affordable One of the reasons for that is that Galveston is still not particularly safe and has pockets of seriously bad neighborhoods. It would seem that the answers might be pertinent to this discussion, particularly to The Heights.

Thanks, SCDesign, for the information you provided in this post. If your first sentence was directed at my previous post, then I thought it only fair to point out that I had just a technical question, not a financial interest. (unlike you or RedScare, for example.) In point of fact, I live in Pearland, in a tract subdivision, which has always had very strict architectural controls. I think it would be fair to say that many of us suburban sprawl denizens think that is perfectly normal, even though we've all got horror stories about the Yard Police. That was not completely clear to me and I suspect it's not widely known. Thank you for clarifying that. Don't a lot of areas where the houses are more than 50 years old already have deed restrictions? I'm thinking of River Oaks, Southampton, Southgate, etc. Your point that those other areas are equally worthy, if not likely, to be "protected from development" is not only well taken, but in my opinion desirable. I am surprised that blockface preservation is the main focus, and I didn't catch that in my perusal of the Guidelines. But that goes to the point of my earlier questions: 1. Even if blockface preservation is of paramount importance to "whoever," how does that prevent reasonable additions to the rear and sides of a house? Your Victorian in a block of Craftsmen example seems to be about new construction; my sense is that most of the homeowners are worked up about not having their additions and remodels approved. 2. If the ordinance goes through, isn't there a mechanism to revise the Guidelines if necessary? In particular if it is unnecessarily onerous to residents? 3. It seems to me that the main focus should be preservation of structures. Don't demolish usable houses, especially if they have significant architectural elements. I don't see why that _wouldn't_ be a good thing all over Houston.

I don't own property in the Heights, so this discussion doesn't affect me as personally as it does several of the posters in this thread. And I certainly see how deeply emotionally charged this is becoming. But I do have a sincere, non-rhetorical question. Leaving aside the strong tradition of property rights in Houston, which I understand, what exactly is so onerous about the Heights Historic District Design Guidelines? I did read through them as SCDesign suggested above, and honestly I didn't see anything that stuck out as being unreasonable. I saw several alternatives for expansion of houses and even several compatible new-construction alternatives. Seriously, for those of you who have dealt with the Design Guidelines personally and professionally, what are some of the specific issues? Secondly, since my interest in the issue doesn't go much beyond "don't demolish old houses which can be saved," are there reasonable changes to the Guidelines, specifically those dealing with alterations, which could be proposed and might likely be passed which could make the situation more palatable? Chester seems to be implying, for example, that simple bathroom additions, presumably to the rear of a house are (capriciously) rejected. In other words, are there easy fixes to the rules that HAHC might consider which would save more houses in the long run by avoiding a protest backlash?

Isn't that the city emergency management center? Really, I think that's what it is.

Well, scarface, you're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. I still think Pearland is the best of the suburbs, and I'm glad I live there. I just don't find hardcore suburban retail development very pleasant or interesting, and one of the reasons I moved there when I did was that there wasn't much of that, and if I needed to go to a big national chain, Almeda and Baybrook were close enough. I would LOVE to live in Angleton if I could make the commute work. I grew up in Lake Jackson.

Pretty much what he said. The traffic, everywhere, is three times worse. 518 used to be a true rural highway with horses and cattle on each side and a 50+ mph speed limit. Now it's lined with shoddy half-vacant strip centers and storage places. Once you get to 288/518 it's all national retailers, often with half-hearted inventory. (Half Price Books is a notable exception.) 288 used to be a great commute, now it is to be avoided during any daylight hours, pretty much. There is just such...lack of originality in so much of the business planning. Does Pearland really need another undistinguished little Mexican restaurant? Another storage place? Another fast food place? Three Super Wal-Mart's, a Super Target, two CVS's, SIX Walgreens, three Krogers, five Sonics, two Home Depots, a Lowe's, two IHOP's, three Burger Kings, three Pizza Hut Delivery's, two stand-alone Starbucks and who knows how many Starbucks in grocery stores? I can think of at least four. I don't mind the "master bland communities." They are safe and attractive and the value for price equation is one of the best, if not the best in the whole area. My house is nearly paid off, my daughter has had the benefit of good if not exciting or innovative schools, and there are still a few small-town amenities. The library is first rate, there are some great independent stores like O'Day's and Pearland Lumber, there's a cheap movie theatre a mile from my house and two or three locally recognized restaurants about the same distance. (Central Texas BBQ, Santa Barbara Italian, and Killen's)

Fair enough, if you like where you live now. You probably would have liked the Pearland of 20 years ago more than now. I moved out there 20 years ago this fall and I liked it MUCH better then. But, you were the one who said "But I will be forever bitter that my office is down there and I have to drive from the city to the goat farm every day." Just trying to save you a little bitterness, that's all.

You ate at Fish City Cafe. I agree with you and 20thStDad about Pearland Town Center. It's bush league at best. It looks like they weren't trying. It's full of weak clothing and specialty stores which will fail in a few months or years. And the major retailers like Barnes & Noble, Macy's, and Dillards have small, poorly stocked, cheap-looking stores. You have a reverse commute and you're complaining? At one time Pearland had a certain rural charm, as recently as five years ago, and pockets of it still exist. Now it's just becoming suburbia. Still, if you work in Pearland and live in Houston, it seems like you could move to Pearland and come out ahead financially and in quality of life. Just sayin.' Another example of where I agree with TheNiche. I remember thinking at the time "WTF were they thinking with that?" Especially since there's already something similar in The Woodlands. I'm pretty sure that they are all finished and the other ones are/were stored at David Adickes' studio on Sawyer Street. You can see them on Bing's birds eyes or Google Earth. Putting them around the city sounds interesting but they need to be relatively safe from vandals. Both Bushes and Obama, for example, seem like obvious targets for graffiti and the presidents with eyeglasses look like likely candidates for theft or tampering. Art car? Probably more like a heavy truck. Not gonna happen unless Adickes wants it to, and he seems to want to keep the set together in some way or another.

Well, THAT'S interesting. Let us know how it is. I can't imagine that the combination of weird (some expensive) ingredients and a downtown high-rent location isn't going to kill them in a coupla months, but maybe I'm wrong. Hope so.

I didn't even know it was there.

Yep, there it is. Thanks. I actually saw that earlier at a much smaller zoom and just thought it was a crease in the original image! Interesting, it's NOT in the 1957 image.

Can anyone find this Fondren location on historicaerials.com? It seems like it should be visible on the 1957 and maybe the 1963 map but I can't identify it.